DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited
(B2020/323)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 22 June 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr M de Rooy of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR720408.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union initiated proceedings against Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited in the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation to conduct a ballot of employees for proposed protected action. The dispute centred on the union's application for a protected action ballot to gauge employee support for potential industrial action, including strikes and stoppages. The union argued that the proposed action was lawful and necessary to address workplace grievances, while Allied Pinnacle contended that the ballot was premature and potentially coercive.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning the timing and conditions of protected action ballots. The Commission had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements, including the necessity of good faith negotiations and the appropriateness of the timing. The Commission also considered whether the ballot would unduly influence employees and whether it aligned with the principles of fair and lawful industrial action.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union's application for a ballot did not meet the statutory prerequisites. The Commission held that the union had not demonstrated a genuine dispute or impasse after engaging in good faith negotiations, as required by the Act. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was premature and potentially coercive, as it was conducted without sufficient evidence of unresolved workplace issues. The Commission therefore rejected the union's application, emphasising the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing industrial action.

The Commission's decision underscores the necessity for unions to satisfy stringent criteria before seeking to conduct a ballot for protected action. The ruling highlights the importance of good faith negotiations and the timeliness of proposed industrial action, ensuring that employee rights are protected and that employers are not unduly pressured. The Commission's decision serves as a reminder of the regulatory framework governing industrial relations and the importance of compliance with legislative requirements.

United Workers' Union v Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established